Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Burzynski Clinic

Burzynski Clinic


18 July 2013

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I was trying to change the Lead paragraph of the Burzynski Clinic article to a more neutral stance by adding sources to back up the facts. The current lead paragraph has no sourcing and is not written in a neutral point of view. I was given various reasons for why my edits were changed back, so I tried to write it more like the other editors preferred,even omitting one of my sources, but it was still changed back. I also added a couple of facts that were sourced in other areas, but those were removed as well. Everything I added was sourced and everything I added was removed. I also believe that I used reliable sources.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have posted on the Burzynski Clinic "talk" with multiple entries.

How do you think we can help?

I think by being a third party, you can help find some solution.

Comment by Noformation
I think this DRN request is premature. A talk page discussion was opened just yesterday and many editors haven't had a chance to respond. This is a dispute between a new editor (not that there's anything wrong with that) and multiple experienced editors and can probably be handled on talk given a day or two. If that doesn't work out then DRN would be appropriate. N o f o rmation Talk  08:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by kashmiri
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by Alexbrn
This request is premature. At the very least allow 24 hours to elapse so that editors from all different time zones get a chance to comment on the Talk page. Also, from comments on the Talk page I am not sure the new editor appreciates the basics of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, in which case DR might not be that useful. Alexbrn talk 10:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Arthur Rubin
Most of the new editor's changes reflect the sources, which, however, are not reliable, or, in the case of the ACS source, was previously determined by consensus to be misleading. As there are 4 archives here to search, and also archives of the related merged articles, it would be unfair to expect a new editor to be familiar with the consensus. I think it's premature, but that, if a DRN volunteer accepts the case, he/she would find that the proposed edits have already been considered and rejected by consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.